27 same eligibility requirements must be fulfilled [and both public officials] are ‘appointed by agreement of the Consejo de Gabinete [Council of Ministers] and subject to approval by the Asamblea Nacional [Legislative Assembly]’ (Article 200, paragraph 2, of the 1972 Political Constitution).”75 Though Article 331 of the Judicial Code provides that “‘[t]he Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] is the highest-ranking official in the Ministerio Público [Office of the Public Attorneys] and all other officials are hierarchically subordinated thereto,’ such provision has always been construed as not applicable to the Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration], as the latter was not hierarchically subordinated to the Attorney General under the Panamanian constitutional system established in 1972.”76 89. The Court concludes that there are no evidentiary items on the record which show that the authority responsible for the investigation was hierarchically subordinated to the former Attorney General, the defendant in the case. On the grounds of the foregoing, the Court dismisses such argument. VII ARTICLE 13 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION)77, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) 90. The Commission alleged that: a) the dispute which broke out around the then Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], “allegedly linked to acts of wiretapping and recording of telephone communications, inevitably draws immediate attention by local public opinion”; b) the criminal provisions on the crime of defamation are expressly contemplated in the legislation of Panamá, and are lawfully aimed at protecting the right to privacy and the reputation of individuals. However, when such provisions are used to prevent criticism towards a public official or to censor expressions related to alleged illegal activities carried out by a public official in the course of office, the effect of the mere commencement of criminal prosecution constitutes a violation of the Convention; c) the protection of the honor of individuals involved in matters of public interest “[…] should be consistent with the principles of democratic pluralism” and should allow for a much wider scope of acceptance and tolerance of criticism than that of private individuals. Likewise, “given that there were other measures to protect privacy and reputation that were less restrictive, such as the right of rectification or civil penalties, and considering the importance of open debate regarding matters of public interest, in this case it was not necessary to resort to the crime of defamation to protect honor”; and d) both the institution of criminal proceedings and the punishment imposed on the victim “for the 75 Cf. Report by the expert witness Olmedo Sanjur, supra note 74, folios 510 and 511. 76 Cf. Report by the expert witness Olmedo Sanjur, supra note 74, folio 511. 77 In its relevant passage, Article 13 of the Convention states that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. […]